Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
ruling. if the supreme court does for gay marriage what it did for abortion and roe v. wade and said, no, this is not in the hands of the people. we're going to say there's gay marriage, that would do a lot to fire up the republican base and could turn this issue on its head and it could become a big winner for republicans because they'd feel disenfranchised. >> what about the flip side? what if the republican goes that way, their base doesn't get fired up. democrats have relied on saying to some voters, that other party is not with you. if the republican got with them, does that take this off the table for democrats? >> well, i actually think it takes it off the table and that's good news for americans in general. i mean, i think this issue is a little bit broader than politics. and i know that's weird to say here in washington, but what i think the problem with the stance that the republican party has taken right now is that it's on the wrong side of history. and we have seen throughout history that when there's a group of people that want to deny another group of people less rights an
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
. when roe v. wade was decided abortion was legal in only four states. you look at the numbers on gay marriage. 1996 compared to today. in 1996 27% of the country thought gay marriage should be valid. by 2012 it's 50%. as someone who works closely on this issue, what do we owe that almost sea change in public opinion to? >> i think a big -- the recent sea change, i think a lot we owe to president obama, his leadership. i think he particularly, the african-american community, i think his speaking out on this has made a big deal. the other thing i think that's made a big deal is the visibility of gay and lesbian people. the more -- the court is not immune to that. the more people meet gay people as their clerk oorz family members or their friends or neighbors, the more they realize that this notion that they shouldn't be able to get married, which is a deeply conservative institution, the idea that two people can't love each other and get -- be in a stable relationship, which is family values, it's ridiculous. that's why we have people like ted olson who is, you know, a very conservativ
liberate california or create a gay roe v. wade. s acceptance is only growing. kennedy can only give the gay rights movement a decisive final victory. the train that is the gay rights movement cannot be stopped. gays will continue coming out and demanding rights and suing for equality until they win. because as edie said, marriage matters. the opposition can only build dams to hold off the inevitable tidal wave of justice because we're talking about something fundamental in society, the right to choose your nuclear family without being penalized. the right to have your relationship respected. isn't that what the pursuit of happiness is about? for me the pursuit of happiness though is tossing to martin bashir. >> thank you, toure. and you have stolen some of my time so i'm not going to talk to you. good afternoon. it's monday, december the 10th, and this thing is going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets better. ♪ >> we'd like to announce we have reached an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. >> get in a room and make the changes that are needed. >> it sounds like the pre
the women the right guaranteed to them by roe v. wade. even as the new herd presents your fresh faces, it's array of gender and versatility that we in nerdland will take each of you at face value. but will then move on quickly to ask what are your new ideas? at the table, matt welch is editor in chief of reason. editor in reason of chief magazine and the co-author of declaration of independence. conservative writer tara wall was a senior media adviser for. an associate professor of science at columbia university. a fellow at the roosevelt institute and manuel reyes. thanks for having you here. it's nice to have you. >>> tara, welcome to nerdland. >> how did i know you were coming to me first. >> now i would like you to explain your party. >> lay it all on the table. >> in a certain way, it's so early, i feel silly talking about it. but i do think it's important that we not sort of come out of a win as i've seen both parties do in midterm elections or general elections with this narrative, oh, the other party is over. this is the decisive election. i don't think we see anything like that.
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)